TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Applicant Liable for Full Service Tax Payment, Penalties Imposed</h1> <h3>IN RE : SVL MANPOWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.</h3> IN RE : SVL MANPOWER SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. - 2018 (364) E.L.T. 758 (Sett. Comm.) Issues Involved:1. Short payment of Service Tax.2. Applicability of partial reverse charge under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T.3. Imposition of penalties.4. Interest liability.5. Immunity from prosecution.Detailed Analysis:1. Short Payment of Service Tax:The Applicant, a Private Limited Company engaged in providing Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services, was accused of short payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 80,22,513/-. The Applicant had paid Rs. 73,51,682/- during the investigation but contested the remaining Rs. 6,70,831/-, arguing that 75% of this amount was paid by the service recipients under the reverse charge mechanism. The Commission found that the Applicant was liable to pay 100% of the Service Tax and settled the Service Tax liability at Rs. 80,30,602/-.2. Applicability of Partial Reverse Charge:The Applicant contended that the condition in Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012, applied only to 'Works Contract' and not to 'Supply of Manpower.' However, the jurisdictional Commissioner disagreed, stating that the Applicant was required to discharge 100% of the Service Tax liability. The Commission agreed with the Commissioner, stating that the payment of Service Tax by the service recipients did not absolve the Applicant of their liability.3. Imposition of Penalties:The Applicant argued that their failure to pay the full Service Tax was due to operational problems and lack of knowledge about the Service Tax provisions. They requested a waiver of penalties. The Commission found that the Applicant had failed to discharge their statutory obligations and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Applicant and Rs. 10,000/- on the Co-Applicant.4. Interest Liability:The Applicant had paid Rs. 13,16,371/- towards interest, which was accepted by the jurisdictional Commissioner. However, as the Applicant was required to pay an additional Service Tax of Rs. 6,70,831/-, the Commission directed the Applicant to work out the revised interest liability to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner.5. Immunity from Prosecution:The Commission granted immunity from prosecution to the Applicant and Co-Applicant, subject to the payment of the amounts ordered within thirty days. The immunities were granted under Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to Service Tax matters.Conclusion:The Commission settled the case by directing the Applicant to pay the remaining Service Tax of Rs. 6,70,831/-, along with any additional interest. Penalties were imposed on both the Applicant and Co-Applicant, but they were granted immunity from prosecution, provided they complied with the payment orders within the stipulated time.
TaxTMI 